Governor Quinn is pushing a responsible and honest budget plan that would begin to reduce the state’s over-reliance on property taxes by properly funding education and sending every homeowner a guaranteed $500 property tax refund each year.

By contrast, billionaire Bruce Rauner is scheming to shift more of the tax burden to property taxpayers by cutting the state’s investment in education.

“It’s no surprise that Rauner - a self-proclaimed member of the .01% - would be scheming to do something that the 99% are strongly against,” Quinn spokesman Izabela Miltko said. “By cutting the state’s support for education, Rauner would preside over the largest property tax increase in Illinois history.

“It’s time to lower the property tax burden for homeowners across Illinois by properly funding our schools and sending every homeowner a guaranteed $500 property tax refund each year. The governor’s budget plan does just that.”

More than 2.1 million Illinois households would receive an annual $500 property tax refund under the governor’s budget plan, which also provides the largest increase in funding for the classroom in state history. Illinois collects more money in property taxes than the state’s sales tax and income tax combined.

* The poll didn’t say that 99 percent of Chicagoans don’t want a property tax hike. The somewhat oddly worded McKeon & Associates poll [ADDING: McKeon just called to say that the Sun-Times chose the question’s wording] merely allowed Chicagoans to pick their preference of new revenue streams…

Offered four choices on ways Chicago could solve its $20 billion pension crisis, raising property taxes ranked dead-last, chosen by only one percent of the Chicago voters surveyed.

The favorite remedies on the list — both at 25 percent — were a “commuter tax” on suburbanites who work in Chicago and the transaction tax on LaSalle Street exchanges championed by the Chicago Teachers Union.

Running close behind — at 21 percent — was a city income tax. That’s somewhat surprising, since a city income tax would have to be paid by many of those polled.

The transaction tax is dead, as is the city income tax. The commuter tax isn’t going anywhere any time soon. And while the 1 percent favoring a property tax hike is newsworthy, there apparently were no follow-up questions about what voters actually thought of that prospect.

* Also, the governor’s proposed property tax rebate isn’t really a property tax rebate. It’s a $500 check to all Illinois homeowners - at a net new cost to income taxpayers of $700 million.

* And, as Rauner has noted before, education funding hasn’t been protected by Quinn in the past. So, is the governor, then, responsible for large numbers of school-related property tax hikes? And since the governor pushed the original income tax hike, which didn’t include money for local government revenue sharing, is he also responsible for their tax hikes?

rich, please dont go confusing things by dredging up facts and expecting consistency and logic. cut, cut, cut,increase. all that matters is the most recent year to year comparison, and whatever is in the most recent press release. MAP grant is a perfect example. look, shiny.

On a more serious taxation note, here’s a logical / mathematical but not necesarily politically palatable scenario:

Assuming “pension reform” gets tossed by the ISC, we can expect to see both the extension of the current temp income tax and a gradual cost shift of teachers (TRS) to the local districts, driving up the local property taxes. Then the local municipalities, to bail out their failing pension systems, will either further increase property taxes or increase local sales taxes.

Here’s the reason I don’t support the property tax “rebate”: It does nothing to help renters, who tend to be lower-income. Those folks are paying property taxes as a chunk of their rent, but they won’t get the benefits of this.

However one defines the always nebluous “middle class” (definitions are legion) everyone needs help. Property taxes are so high in Illinois-Cook County especially-its basically like paying rent to the government to live in your own house. Plus, many higher-income people are now renting anyway because banks are not lending money like they once did.

I agree about the renters, Soccermom. That’s why it’s a bit silly to say Quinn’s plan is a “secret Chicago pension bailout.” I don’t know what percentage of Chicago residents rent, but it’s got to be pretty high.

I for one do not see the difference in paying $100 a year in city income tax and paying $100 more in property taxes. Either way I am paying $100 more in taxes. A city income tax makes paying income taxes more complex and fails to reduce my total tax bill.

A “commuter tax” on suburbanites who work in Chicago lets me keep my low tax rates and lets someone else pay part of the cost of the pension for those who work for me. Having someone else effectively pay what would otherwise be part of my taxes appeals to me.

PublicServant — I didn’t mean “low, low income” — I just meant lower income than homeowners. I have rented over the years, as have most of the people I know. We were still classified as middle-class — just weren’t in a position to buy a home at that time. There are plenty of middle-class renters who won’t get any relief from this plan.

Apparently about half of the people who live in Chicago are renting. And it is off-point to talk about EITC — the issue here is the number of folks who have middle-class incomes and who are renting, not the folks at the lowest end of the income scale.

Wumpus, I can’t tell from the coverage, but I don’t think this rebate would apply to rental units. Usually the term “homeowner” refers to a single owner-occupied unit. So there would be no relief to pass along to renters, even if landlords were feeling generous. (And in a 12-flat, for example, a $500 payment would be about $3.50 a month per unit… So not terribly helpful in any case.)

Renters didn’t take the financial hit that homeowners took when housing prices collapsed, Soccermom. I’m fine with the help being targeted to homeowners. Renters can move. Underwater homeowners, can’t sell unless they want to realize sometimes huge losses if they sell now, and that banking bailout didn’t trickle down to homeowners either. As relief to a targeted group of individuals, I’m fine with homeowners being that target.

Renters didn’t take the financial hit that property owners did so that means the property owners should get a tax break?
Good post actually because it shows the mentality of Illinois elected officials.

A commuter tax, eh? I’m sure the struggling suburban office parks are salivating at the prospect. Just as Chicago is starting to attract some big and not so big corporation from the suburbs to the City, along comes a tax that would make the move economically unattractive. Of course city residents want to tax someone else for their obligations. Consequences? Who cares?!

PublicServant — I understand the impact of the housing collapse. Our own home, Downturn Abbey, just recently appeared above the waterline.

But here’s the thing: In River Forest (which is hardly considered a solid middle-class community) half of the homeowners will be getting a check — even though the median household income is about $114,337 — more than twice the state median. I don’t think you want to create a situation where a middle-class renter in Chicago is paying more in income tax to give relief to a homeowner in River Forest.http://www.city-data.com/city/River-Forest-Illinois.html

And let’s remember that a lot of today’s renters were yesterday’s homeowners; I would certainly argue that someone who lost a house to a short sale or foreclosure was way more affected by the downturn than someone who has lived in a home for 20 years and whose mortgage is relatively small.

Frankly, I’d rather see this money directed to school districts — with some strings so it’s not squandered on top administrators’ bloated salaries.

The only firm conclusion one can draw is that we have one of the worst choices in the history of the world, in our gubernatorial race. Shame they can’t both lose, as Kissinger said of the Iran-Iraq War.